Historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus?

[paarsurrey1]

Is historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus of NT Bible, please?

Regards

______
One may like to read Post 41 of friend Jagella in the thread :�Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?� Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

[Jagella]

Is historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus of NT Bible, please?

Regards

______
One may like to read Post 41 of friend Jagella in the thread :�Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?� Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

I'm still investigating this issue. On the other thread I quoted Richard Carrier's argument that the historical evidence for Socrates is far better than the evidence for Jesus. While I haven't studied the historicity for Socrates much, I do know that the evidence for Jesus is very weak. Almost all the evidence for Jesus comes from the New Testament which is religious propaganda not meant to inform but to convert.

I did see a story on NBC News this morning that the "Holy Sepulcher" has been dated to "Roman times." That's supposed to be evidence for Jesus. I am underwhelmed. They didn't already know that that tomb was dated to the time Jesus is believed to have lived? They claimed it to be Jesus' tomb without even knowing how old it was. I see this kind of nonsense as a tacit admission that there's little if any good evidence for Jesus, and those who dearly wish him to be real will jump on anything that smells like Jesus. Here's what Acharya S has to say about these "sacred sites":

The existence of “tombs� or other sacred sites proves little in itself, since it is common practice to set up symbolic sites, the symbolism of which no doubt becomes lost to the masses. Sacred site-making is also great business—imagine owning the piece of property where God himself was born, walked and died!

Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold; Kempton, Illinois; Adventures Unlimited Press; 1999, Page 83

[Willum]

There is absolutely no evidence that Socrates raised anyone from the dead, not did he return from the dead.
No one saw him walk on water.

There are plenty of real-world things ascribed t him, both from partial and impartial authors - even detractors.
Therefore someone with a history akin to Socrates exists.

Jesus has no busts, no books or writings. He has no recording of his early life (other then pre-birth, etc.) He filled no government or business role (that can be referenced), no major events account for him, despite grandiose claims.

There are no writings criticizing him, and so on.

Altogether, Jesus fails an general existence test.

[Goose]

Is historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus of NT Bible, please?

If you are going to limit the evidence for Jesus to only Paul, then yes the evidence for Socrates would be stronger since Paul is just one source whereas our main sources for the life of Socrates come down to us from three sources - Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato.

But of course one has to ask, why the evidence for Jesus is being limited to only Paul?

What if I were to rework the question and ask, is the historical evidence for Jesus stronger than Aristophanes Socrates? That's framing the question in such a way as to ensure a win for Jesus.

One may like to read Post 41 of friend Jagella in the thread :�Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?� Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

The relevant post from Jagella began at post 27. My first response was post 28.

[paarsurrey1]

There is absolutely no evidence that Socrates raised anyone from the dead, not did he return from the dead.
No one saw him walk on water.

There are plenty of real-world things ascribed t him, both from partial and impartial authors - even detractors.
Therefore someone with a history akin to Socrates exists.

Jesus has no busts, no books or writings. He has no recording of his early life (other then pre-birth, etc.) He filled no government or business role (that can be referenced), no major events account for him, despite grandiose claims.

There are no writings criticizing him, and so on.

Altogether, Jesus fails an general existence test.

Jesus also did not:

~raised anyone from the dead
~Jesus did not raise himself from the literal and physical dead
~Jesus did not walk on the water

These myths were later invented to make Jesus a god or son of god, which he was not in literal and physical terms. Right, please?

Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by paarsurrey1]

Exactly, Jesus, also did not exist, along with not performing all those deeds.
Jesus was also added later.

He was probably based on the claims made of many men that impressed lay people, and cobbled together loosely with the OT, to form a religion that had Palestine and the world, render taxes to Caesar and obey Rome.

Those only two terrestrial and provable applications you can get out of the NT.

That, and it was written in Greek, the educated language of the day, and not Hebrew.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 5 by paarsurrey1]

These myths were later invented to make Jesus a god or son of god, which he was not in literal and physical terms.

There's no need for a historical Jesus at all to explain the myths that fill the New Testament. Religious zeal, bias and dishonesty are quite enough to explain it all.

Right, please?

I'd say that there probably was no Jesus to add any myths to. He probably was a myth himself from the beginning.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

They're more or less comparable from what little I know of Socrates: And considering the overwhelming abundance of material from classical Greece compared with material from Judea prior to the 70CE revolt, that's really quite remarkable.

A much more direct comparison for Jesus - in terms of time, culture, and ultimate attributed influence on the respective directions which Judaism eventually took - would be with Hillel the Elder. In fact Hillel was actually far more prominent in his own day than Jesus, yet in terms of surviving historical evidence Jesus wins hands down. Not particularly surprisingly, most of the material regarding Jesus which has survived through to the present was written after the revolt or outside Judea itself, though among these we still have two first-hand accounts regarding Jesus' brother (Paul and Josephus) and one highly creative account probably by a disciple of Jesus himself (John).

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by Mithrae]

You keep making this FALSE statement that there is very little literature from the times. This is just incorrect, as has been shown to you a few times.

I wouldn't trumpet too much about Hillel, I mean, since he is a big part of a religion that is being argued to be false, one must say, "So what?"

Perhaps it is a similar situation to Jesus, no one cared about him while he was 'alive.' But you know, hundreds of years after the fact, amazing stuff happened then.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 8 by Mithrae]

You keep making this FALSE statement that there is very little literature from the times. This is just incorrect, as has been shown to you a few times.

Please link to a post supporting this claim, because I'm quite certain that I have never seen a list of extant literature from early/mid 1st century Judea, least of all on this forum, besides the discoveries at Qumran. Off the top of my head the only specific contemporary Jewish sources from that period I can think of are Philo (writing from Alexandria, not Judea) and Josephus (writing in Rome long after the revolt). Many other traditions were preserved in later rabbinic literature, which again would not support your contention. Meanwhile, we know for the fact that the cultural and religious centre of Jewish life was quite literally razed to the ground in 70CE, and can reasonably infer that in many other towns the most delicate and flammable materials were likewise destroyed when overrun by Roman armies. This is precisely why the surviving materials from Qumran were hidden in the caves there, after all.

Again, please provide a link for where I have been "shown" otherwise.